And the Myth of Pasteurization
I have never set out to trash
anyone. My whole reason for writing or researching anything is to
find the truth. In writing about Pasteur, I've encountered things I
thought to be true which have turned out to be false. This happens.
The one thing I pride myself on is that I have always come back to
this article to correct the errors and continue my quest for the
you surf the web, no doubt you will find dozens of web sites singing the praises
of Louis Pasteur.
Here is something we found at: http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Louis_Pasteur.html
If one were to choose among
the greatest benefactors of humanity, Louis Pasteur would certainly rank
at the top. He solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera,
and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first
vaccines. He debunked the widely accepted myth of
generation, thereby setting the stage for modern biology and
biochemistry. He described the scientific basis for fermentation,
wine-making, and the brewing of beer. Pasteur's work gave birth to many
branches of science, and he was singlehandedly responsible for some of
the most important theoretical concepts and practical applications of
Pasteur's achievements seem
wildly diverse at first glance, but a more in-depth look at the
evolution of his career indicates that there is a logical order to his
discoveries. He is revered for possessing the most important qualities
of a scientist: the ability to survey all the known data and link the
data for all possible hypotheses, the patience and drive to conduct
experiments under strictly controlled conditions, and the brilliance to
uncover the road to the solution from the results.
we got the following:
Pasteur was born on December 27, 1822 in Dole, in the region of Jura,
France. His discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs,
known as the "germ theory of disease", is one of the most
important in medical history. His work became the foundation for the science
of microbiology, and a cornerstone of modern medicine.
Pasteur's phenomenal contributions to
microbiology and medicine can be summarized as follows. First, he championed
changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes.
Second, he discovered that weakened forms of a microbe could be used as an
immunization against more virulent forms of the microbe. Third, Pasteur
found that rabies was transmitted by agents so small they could not be seen
under a microscope, thus revealing the world of viruses. As a result he
developed techniques to vaccinate dogs against rabies, and to treat humans
bitten by rabid dogs. And fourth, Pasteur developed
"pasteurization", a process by which harmful microbes in
perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the
UNESCO proclaimed 1995 as "The Year of Pasteur."
Just prior to that, Pasteur’s family proudly released his notes and research.
Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly
review those notes. In 1995, The Year of Pasteur, Geison published his book
THE PRIVATE SCIENCE OF LOUIS PASTEUR.
Geison discovered from Pasteur's own notes that
he'd deceived the public a number of times, "borrowed" heavily from
his competition, but in the end was still very much a genius who
left the world a better place.
Pasteur is not attractive: aloof, gruff, authoritarian, secretive,
competitive, a ruthless opponent. That, from the point of view of
his science, is irrelevant. His misconduct about anthrax and rabies
is much more reprehensible, though as regards rabies, perhaps he
could defend himself in terms of the terrible problem of coming face
to face with a dying child he thought he could help.
THIS book provides a fascinating and detailed account of much of
Pasteur's life and of French science in the last century. But its
aim is wider. Mr. Geison thinks the episodes he examines have a
contemporary message: Science, like any other form of culture,
relies on rhetoric; objective, value-free science may be a myth. In
fact, no matter how brilliant a scientist's rhetoric, in the long
run the truth will out. Social factors influence the course of
science; the outcome is determined by nature.
Splattered all over the web, and at one time here,
is the "so-called" fact that the New York Times published
an article called, "Pasteur’s Deception."
That article does not exist nor has it ever existed, at least at the
New York Times. The article published in 1995 is this one:
THE DOCTOR'S WORLD; Revisionist History Sees Pasteur As Liar Who
Stole Rival's Ideas.
Pasteur was not a fraud. He was a scientist who, like all
scientists depended upon grants to continue his research. Thus he was often
motivated to lie in order to get ahead of his competition and get the money he
needed to get the job done. In fact, the first reference to Pasteur (above)
tells us how he debunked spontaneous generation. Geison's book refutes this
because Pasteur's own notes show that the results of his experiments failed to
put to sleep the concept and that Pasteur would simply make up a new
explanation for his failures.
However, history seems to remember only Pasteur's
successes and and has buried the work of his contemporaries who,
though admitting to Pasteur's "germ theory," saw past that and
realized a whole other world of theories existed. These other
theories were not going to make people rich.
The germ theory of medicine has made billions of
dollars for the pharmaceutical industry, probably trillions over the
years (if you take into consideration inflation). Had Pasteur's
contemporaries, such as Bernard and Bechamp, won the spotlight,
medicine today would be enormously different and totally
Dr Sam Chachoua,
in his lectures, points out that if you graph deaths by infection
over the years, you will see that they were dropping when
antibiotics arrived on the scene and that the use of antibiotics did
not significantly change the rate at which deaths by infection
Where to begin? Well, let’s begin with the Germ Theory.
As discussed in The
Lost History of Medicine, some of Pasteur's contemporaries felt that the
terrain is more important than the germ.
Pasteur described germs as non-changeable. We know today, from
the Royal Rife's work that microorganisms are pleomorphic, that they
can change and often do. A bacterium can mutate into a
yeast or fungus and back again. Royal Rife saw this and even photographed it. He
even saw a bacterium "poop" out viruses, as he described it. The problem is, no
one alive today has ever seen a live virus. Rife's microscopes have all been
destroyed . . . or rather, they were all maliciously vandalized.
(And we have been violently criticized for
publishing such "bunk" by every know-it-all on the web; but the
facts stand: Rife reported all this and they eventually killed him
for it. Our web site is listed
with others who are "germ theory deniers." Most people reject Royal Rife's work, reject Pasteur's contemporaries (Bernard & Bechamp),
and reject naturopathy that still today performs research on a "healthy terrain.")
Modern medicine will never acknowledge the
pleomorphic nature of germs because it would
turn the pharmaceutical interests on their backs like a helpless tortoise.
Again, we follow the money.
Medical tests take your blood and then fix it with a dye. They
freeze the blood in a fixed state. The germs therein are frozen in time. This is
not real life. Germs change, blood moves; life is a process, not a fixed state.
It was Bechamp who first discovered the pleomorphic nature of germs,
and later on Bernard described the "milieu" or environment that
affected/caused those changes. Bernard is the one responsible for our theories
today on pH and how the nature of the microorganisms change as the body moves
from an alkaline pH to an acidic pH. It should be noted that this movement is
not great. The pH of the blood fluctuates between 7.35 and 7.45. At 7.0 the body
would slip into a coma. Many websites and theories out there fail to address the
this very slight significance and believe our pH can fluctuate at ridiculous
rates. (This is covered in depth in our article The
Lost History of Medicine.)
On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard was
right; the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing.
Claude Bernard said: "When we meet a fact which
contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept the fact and
abandon the theory, even when the theory is supported by
great names and generally accepted."
Since the fifties, rumor has it that on his deathbed
Louis Pasteur had said: "Bernard avait raison. Le
germe n'est rien, c'est le terrain qui est tout." ("Bernard
was right. The microbe is nothing, the soil is
This came from a doctor Hans Selye in his book
The Stress of Life. I found this at a site called
Susan Dorey Designs. She's done a heck of a lot of work
tracing the claim back to its initial source.
Dr Selye did not have a source for his quotation and
Susan had to do a little more work, finally finding an
article published in Nexus Magazine in 1992 by Christopher
Bird. It was called
"To Be Or Not
To Be? 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge." In it he quotes
Pasteur (as above) and references a Marie Nonclercq, a
French pharmacist (who did her doctoral dissertation on
Bechamp). Bird claims that Nonclercq told him that she had
found Pasteur's recantation in Leon Delhome's book, De
Claude Bernard a d'Arsonval on (or around) page 595.
The problem, Susan points out, is that the book is
written in French.
That's a problem?
I found the book at the UofMN medical library. I've just
finished reading it. My French is quite primitive. I took
three years of it some 30 years ago. However, I can spot the
terms "Pasture" and "Bernard" just as well as any French
When I got the book, I opened it to page 595 and
discovered that this was the last page in the book. That
wasn't a good sign. Nobody would put something like that on
the very last page, which turned out to be just one short
paragraph. So, I started on page one and spent 4 days
thoroughly going over every page. Whenever I found either of
these two's names, I typed the section into Google
I can report that nowhere in this book does Louis Pasture
recant and claim that Claude Bernard was right.
I then found a few other works that Susan mentions
in her paper. Many were online. I translated them and
went through them thoroughly, looking for these two men and
again, nothing. When finished, I had gone though every
possible source reference that would have been written
within 30 years of Pasture's death.
Now, I know that the absence of evidence is not the
evidence of absence, but the absence of fact, after so many
have searched unsuccessfully for the source points to one
conclusion: it is an urban legend. Heck, it's a global
legend. It's been around the world and is probably taught in
schools of naturopathy or nutrition.
One book, Abounding Health Naturally, by Sharon
Jean Wiginton, even has Claude Bernard present at Pasteur's
deathbed to hear him recant. This is one spectacular story
since Claude Bernard had died nearly 18 years before old
Louis went. (You
may read the passage here.)
So, until someone can find the original source of this
"rumor," I am happy to publish this retraction because the
truth is the truth and that's ultimately all I, as a
journalist, want to publish.
Another problem with the Germ Theory of medicine is discovered
when we look at Koch’s Postulates as they apply to Pasteur's experiments:
must be present in every case of the disease.
must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure
disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is
inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected
Pasteur never quite fulfilled all the rules, as Gerald Geison
points out in his book,
THE PRIVATE SCIENCE OF LOUIS PASTEUR. He was not able
to find the germ in all cases of a disease, and this is where his research
bordered on the fraudulent. A really huge problem was when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to
another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some
blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another proves nothing
according to Koch.
One of the first books published that took a serious look at
the work of Pasteur in an unfavorable light was
Bechamp or Pasteur,
written by Ethel Douglas in 1923. It has since then been reprinted under the
heading, Pasteur Exposed, a more dramatic title that would guarantee more
Douglas’s book describes Pasteur as an ambitious
self-promoter. She shows how Pasteur plagiarized Bechamp's work in unraveling
the mysteries of fermentation and the causes of disease in silkworms. But
Pasteur wasn’t as bright as Bechamp and made some very serious mistakes in
both his interpretation of Bechamp’s work and subsequent theories and
practices which he later espoused.
In spite of all his errors in the
work on silkworms, and because of his high position and royal
favouritism, Pasteur was put in charge of the practical measures of
fighting this parasite, and of course did not adopt Béchamp’s method
of using creosote vapour.
Dr A. Lateud, at one time editor of
the Journal de Médecine de
charged that whereas in 1850 France had produced 30 million
kilograms of cocoons, its output had sunk to 15 million
kilograms in 1866-7 due to the epidemic. After Pasteur’s methods of
‘prevention’ had been introduced, production shrank to 8 million
kilograms in 1873 and as low as 2 million kilograms in subsequent
years. He continued:
“That is the way in which Pasteur
saved sericulture! The reputation which he still preserves in this
respect among ignoramuses and short-sighted savants has been brought
– by himself, by means of his
– by the sellers of microscopic
seeds based on on the Pasteur system, who have realized big benefits
at the expense of the cultivators;
– by the complicity of the Academies
and public bodies, which, without any investigation, reply to the
complaints of the cultivators: ‘But sericulture is saved! Make use
of Pasteur’s system!’ However, not everybody is inclined to employ a
system that consists in enriching oneself by the ruination of
Plainly his sins found him out here
– at least with those who were in closest touch with the silkworm
It is astonishing, in view of such a
failure – and after Béchamp had shown how to prevent these diseases
– that Pasteur’s reputation did not go down in a public scandal!
Apparently royal favour and the
Academies and public bodies protected him from this.
Joseph Lister, the young surgeon who developed antiseptic
surgery methods wrote to Pasteur thanking him for his research in sepsis. We
know this to be true since many of Lister’s early surgeries, using carbolic
acid at the strengths advised by Pasteur, ended successfully, though the patient
died. Bechamp was the first person to experiment with carbolic acid, and he
warned against its toxicity. Pasteur poo-pooed this fear and presented his own
theories to the world that Lister had picked up on. It took Joseph Lister a few
more years of refining his techniques and using less and less carbolic acid to
finally produce an antiseptic surgery in which the patient survived.
While Bechamp spent years proving that germs were the
consequence of disease and not the cause, Pasteur’s theory was much simpler
and highly profitable (not unlike the the "lipid hypothesis"). It made economic sense. It made money.
Another book that came out on this subject is
The Dream and
The Lie of Louis Pasteur, and can be found on the web in a few
If you are interested in learning more about the less than honest research of Pasteur,
this is where to start.
Pasteur's family held onto his notes for a very long time. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. This was when
Professor Gerald Geison got a hold of them and
presented his findings in 1993 to
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The New York Times,
seeing how UNESCO had named 1995 the Year of Pasteur, felt that this would be
the proper time to release Gerald Geison’s research. Don’t you just love a
The Myth of Pasteurization
One more thing before we go. Our second reference above makes
this statement: "Pasteur developed ‘pasteurization’, a process by which
harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without
destroying the food."
This is not entirely true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL
harmful microbes in milk and it DOES harm the milk.
In her book,
The Medical Mafia, Dr Lanctôt debunks
pasteurization with a one-two punch:
- The temperature is not high enough.
- The temperature is too high.
First off, Dr Lanctôt points out that germs that bring us
typhoid, coli bacillus, and tuberculosis are not killed by the temperatures
used, and there have been a good number of salmonella epidemics traced to
Secondly, the heating process injures the milk. She points out
that pasteurization destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties, not to
mention healthy enzymes. She goes on to state that 50% of milks calcium is
unusable (the body cannot assimilate it) after pasteurization. So much for all
those milk commercials.
Here’s something we found online that was drawn up for a Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors concerning outbreaks from pasteurized milk:
- 1997, 28 persons ill from Salmonella in California, ALL FROM
- 1996, 46 persons ill from Campylobacter and Salmonella in
- 1994, 105 persons ill from E. coli and Listeria in California
- March of 1985 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium
illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK. Over 200,000 people ill from
Salmonella typhimurium in PASTEURIZED MILK
- 1985, 142 cases and 47 deaths traced to PASTEURIZED
Mexican-style cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria
monocytogenes SURVIVES PASTEURIZATION!
- 1985, 1500 persons ill from Salmonella infection
- August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a
Salmonella typhimurium from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
- November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium
illness from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
- 1983, over 49 persons with Listeria illness have been
associated with the consumption of PASTEURIZED MILK in Massachusetts.
- 1993, 28 persons ill from Salmonella infection
- 1982, 172 persons ill (100 hospitalized) from a three Southern
state area from PASTEURIZED MILK.
- 1982, over 17,000 persons became ill with Yersinia
enterocolitica from PASTEURIZED MILK bottled in Memphis, Tennessee.
It is the author’s conclusion that pasteurization is simply
a quick fix that allows large cartels to profit from the sales of milk. Instead
of relying on safe, sterile handling procedures of raw milk (which would make
the costs of milk much more expensive), we’ve incorporated this quick fix,
which might or might not work, but certainly helps the cartels profit. If you
live near a farm, go get yourself some raw milk. Heck, I’d even drink that!
References And Further Reading:
Vaccine Nation Movie Site
Dr Ghislaine Lanctôt, The Medical Mafia
Ethel Douglas, Bechamp or Pasteur
(later published as Pasteur Exposed)
R B Perason,
The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur